k so I need to get a working keyboard soon broblem with cobybasting voiceless b is that it's right next to brint screen this has led to me basting my screen into a facebook chat today my mother very nearly found out about me trying to seduce a thirty-something journalist but luckily it went into the wrong chat box

This is a long-ass quote, but it's a good one to keep around for the next time we have someone talking about the "irrationality" or "illogicalness" of natural languages and existing conlangs; the alternative would be preserving the entire thread, which I think is of dubious value. (In that vein, I've left out part of the reply specific to the particular case.)

Salmoneus wrote:

1. 'Reason' is not just avoiding contradictions.

The Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is only one of the three most widely (but not universally) accepted axioms of thought. It is more commonly accepted than the Law of the Excluded Middle, but less commonly accepted than the Law of Identity. The LNC by itself will not get you very far at all. Most people nowadays would also add some form of law of continuity (or define the LI to include it) (i.e. if it was true yesterday that it was raining on the 1st March 1582, it'll be true tomorow that it was raining on th 1st March 1582), but that's more controversial.

2. Avoiding contradictions is not necessary.

Logicians tend not to care about avoiding contradictions and inconsistencies per se - that's a metaphysical theoretical issue, not a practical logical one. What logicians are concerned about is the principle of explosion - ex contradictione quodlibet. This says that if you accept one contradiction, you must accept all contradictions, and indeed all propositions: if one contradiction can be proven, every possible proposition is true. Such a result is trivial (it makes everything true), and therefore useless, because a practice of argument that equally confirms all possible propositions is of no practical use.

[to backtrack a moment: inconsistency is when you claim a thing, and also claim the negation of the thing. Contradiction is when you claim both a thing and the negation of the thing simultaneously.]

Now, the principle of explosion follows from the operations of classical logic. Therefore, contradictions cannot be permitted in classical logic. But classical logic is only one of a wide array of possible, and useful, logics. [NB: there is no 'logic', only 'logics']. Some non-classical logics, known as paraconsistent logics, allow you to hold inconsistent propositions as true without inviting trivialism. This can be done either by directly casting aside the LNC by changing the assumptions that normally result in the principle of explosion, or by reducing the ability to move from inconsistency to contradiction (allowing you to keep inconsistency, the LNC and the POE) (i.e. restricting the ability to move from <p> and <~p> to <pv~p>).

Paraconsistent logics are seeing increasing use in many fields of philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and physics (such as in several mathematical approaches to quantum physics). Perhaps the most basic example is calculus, which as originally formulated by both Leibniz and Newton tacitly ignores the POE (early calculus was necessarily inconsistent, though need not be contradictory under some paraconsistent regimes), and though I gather that mathematicians have invented various excuses for this since, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these are just excuses... formal interest in paraconsistency was revived in th 20th century following Goedel's proof that only inconsistent (and hence either trivial or paraconsistent) mathematics could be complete.

3. The LNC is very little use in practice

The LNC, even if accepted, only prohibits a thing being true and false in exactly the same way. This is largely irrelevent for human behaviour and beliefs. Because if someone wants to believe both <p> and <~p>, and you ask what they really mean by that, they inevitably mean that the truth of <p> leads them to do one thing, and the truth of <~p> leads them to do another, different thing as well, and this asymmetry of response shows that the two propositions are not being considered in exactly the same way. Or, at least, for any purported contradiction, it can always be argued that the two things are not intended in exactly the same way. This makes the LNC of almost no use in practical reasoning when dealing with anyone other than the most utterly, gibberingly insane (indeed, the LNC is also widely understood as a psychological truth - even the insane don't believe a thing and its negation in the same way at the same time).

4. Non-paraconsistent logic and non-dialethaeist metaphysics do not entail one another

Logic isn't about what's really true. Logic is just about permitted rules of inference from premises. It is possible to accept the LNC as a rule of argument while believing in metaphysically true contradictions; contrariwise, it is possible to deny the existence of true contradictions while also denying the necessity of the LNC as a rule of argument. So any argument against true contradictions does not serve as an argument for non-paraconsistent logic; and contrariwise, any argument for the utility of non-paraconsistent logics does not serve as an argument for the metaphysical claim that there are no true contradictions. [however, the belief that there are true contradictions is a pretty reasonable basis for rejecting non-paraconsistent logics, needless to say!]

So, it's really important to point out that the claim "contradictions are what's logically impossible; to embrace them is to embrace irrationality" is completely false. It is not logically impossible for contradictions to be true. It is 'logically impossible' within non-paraconsistent logics for contradictions to arise in a valid argument. These are not the same thing at all. Logic has no power over metaphysics, it only describes it. Specifically, employing a non-paraconsistent logic it is impossible to prove a contradiction (because a contradictory conclusion can never arise in a valid argument). But at the same time, employing a non-paraconsistent logic it is possible to prove that there are true propositions that cannot be proven employing a non-paraconsistent logic (thanks, Goedel!). Therefore it follows that, employing a non-paraconsistent logic, it is illogical to believe that it is (demonstrably) impossible for a contradiction to be true. (it may, however, be true that there are no contradictions, just impossible to demonstrate it logically). The metaphysics cannot be proven by the logic: even in non-paraconsistent logic, you can choose to adopt a contradiction as a premise. Non-paraconsistent logic just warns you that if you accept that contradiction as a premise, your conclusions won't be interesting - that doesn't mean, of course, that either the premise or the conclusions are not true. Logic concerns the preservation of truth (if you start with true premises, your conclusions cannot be false), not with the truth or falsehood of premises themselves.

5. Embracing contradictions is not to embrace irrationality

"Rationality" is not well defined. But most commonly it refers either to thinking that is internally guided by reason - calculating one's plans and beliefs through a process of logical deduction from premises - or that is externally in accordance with reasons - the process of determining one's plans and beliefs that most completely results in the outcomes that were desired. It is a pleasant nostrum to imagine that these two definitions are equivalent - that deductive reasoning is the best way to pursue desired outcomes - but in fact it's demonstrably false in many situations (because deductive reasoning itself has a cost, and heuristic-instinctual responses may be close enough to optimal to be 'cheaper' than the cost of a marginally superior but considerably more expensive (in time and effort) deductive reasoning process.

Importantly, however, your theory doesn't hold for either conception of rationality. In the internal conception, there are times when paraconsistent logics are part of deductive reasoning - when you are presented only with 'facts' that you know to be inconsistent but cannot further investigate the truth of, for example, a clever paraconsistent logic enables you to still use those facts to 'solve' many problems, while classical logic just instantly explodes and doesn't let you derive any conclusions whatsoever. Externally, because paraconsistent deductions can be more useful than classical ones, they can be preferred as tools in obtaining the optimal outcomes.

[these two concepts broadly correspond to traditional theoretical and practical reason, btw, though I don't think they're quite the same?]

6. Hardly anything is really irrational

It's nice to say that reason should guide our actions. But the sad truth is, the guidance offered by reason is limited, for the simple reason that hardly anything we ever see or do is genuinely irrational (in the 'internal' sense mentioned above), or else almost everything is irrational (in the 'external' sense mentioned above) but nothing can be shown to be so.

Something is only illogical when the conclusions do not follow securely from the premises. But virtually all errors in real life do follow from the premises - it's just that the premises are wrong. But believing a false premise is not illogical or irrational, but only misinformed. The problem is even greater when it comes to irrationality in the sense of self-defeating behaviour - not only can we never prove the truth or falsity of all the premises involved, but we have no independent evidence regarding what the individual values. If rationality is judged by efficiency in meeting the individual's desires, nothing can per se be irrational, inasmuch as it may be justified by an undeclared desire. And those desires themselves are neither 'rational' or 'irrational'. As Hume observes, it is not irrational to prefer the destruction of the world to the raising of my little finger...

Andrew Sullivan, another Brit with a long interest in US politics, made the same observation and the same mistake back in the Bush years, declaring that Bush wasn't a "true conservative". To switch meanings like this is, at best, to make a lame pun— like saying that political parties should have chips and salsa. [...] Finally, note that the exact same people who want a "balanced budget" also want increased military spending and way lower taxes; it's extremely... not accurate... to say that they value the balanced budget over those other things.

[[unless you're saying that women experience it more but aren't consciously aware of it because they've discounted it because they experience it so much, in which case that's another textbook example of "women are brainwashed by the patriarchy and need men to teach them about how they're oppressed"]]

So, it's either “women are right and the misogyny isn't there” or “women are wrong and you are the misogynist”.

Howl, that's not how strawmen work. [...] you have explained the flaw in your reasoning better than I ever could. [...] what you're doing right now is not rigorous science. It is the equivalent of an aspiring doctor treating patients with voodoo charms.

(When I expressed puzzlement over people talking about stones when I thought we were all talking about potholders)

Axiem wrote:

To be fair, "pot" and "stone" are morphemes I would consider to easily be in a sentence together...

EDIT: (From the venting thread)

Salmoneus wrote:

Quote:

So the other day, my pretending-to-consider was seen through and I was told "We planned for you as well. Come on! We need you to help us finish this!" and then I tried not to appear too eager and race to the table while also trying not to come across as too cool and unthankful, which is a really awkward balance. Years ago, from this exact feeling, I felt so weird about saying thank you for things done for me that I felt were not necessary and weren't expected, that I generally tried to act more surprised than grateful and for some reason felt saying "thank you" would give the impression that I felt entitled to it whereas a stunned "oh!" would convey the appropriate "I-don't-deserve-this-why-are-you-so-good-to-me-ness". I have no idea how I arrived at that weird idea that "thank you" sounds entitled, but maybe it was more like I didn't know how to say it with the right intonation ...

You know, you should maybe try living in England. You'd fit right in here...

you can add instruments to the basic template but by the time you have a crumhorn section you may not be dealing with rock anymore.

[...]

the differences between this subgenre of extreme metal and the others, including black metal, death metal, blackened death metal, death doom metal, atmospheric black metal, funeral doom metal, depressive suicidal black metal, industrial metal, transcendental black metal, black n' roll, blackgaze, melodic death metal, technical death metal, symphonic metal, drone metal, thrash metal, sludge metal, stoner metal, noise metal, grindcore, deathgrind, goregrind, cybergrind, power metal, progressive metal, and djent, are in fact the most important subject in all of musicspace, and i shall proceed to define them all at length in the followi

_________________I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.

edit: I found GoogleUpdate.exe ... it was sitting in plain sight, though not in the location I found it listed at online, and it didnt turn up during a Windows search even from the C:\ firectory. I renamed it to "Poop.exe".

Not Related To Irish At AllAbsolutely not. Never seen it, never heard of it. Definitely didn't browse the wiki page and then fart this out.

Salmoneus wrote:

Nortaneous wrote:

Bill Clinton wasn't very popular when he was president, you know.

...Bill Clinton had a 73% approval rating.

EDIT:

Hydroeccentricity wrote:

I get the impression that if Salmoneus was ever asked to make a fruit salad, he would make it with pumpkin, cucumber, and eggplant, then insist that anyone who complains consult a dictionary and then sit and think about how wrong they are.

Anyway, I'm personally hoping that Indo-Uralic by itself is not true, but rather something like Indo-Ural-Altaic, and at least Indo-European and Uralic are not genetically related except if you go really, really far back in time... long enough for all the Palaeosiberian, Eskimo-Aleut, etc. languages to be related, too. I know it's more or less political, but honestly if Swedes and Russians got any kind of justification for calling Finnish the rape baby of their languages (no matter how much of a stretch would have to go behind it), that would be like the end of the world for me. With my luck that means pretty much by default that Finnish is in fact nothing more than a Swedish-Russian creole and will be confirmed as such within my lifetime, but I refuse to believe that.

ʔɛ́k ɗæ̀im ɾɑ̤ sʊlæ̰i ɾæ̀ ɓo̰k jɛ̀m ɾæ̀ kʰɛ́ɛm hɨ̄m bɑ̰ ʔī jí ɾɑ̤ jo̤o hɨ̄m cík mæ̀ lɛ̰ lǣ ʔɛ́k kɾí ɗæ̀im ɾɑ̤ tɪhǽu mɑ̀ ɡɑ̄ tæ̀.1S play as peasant or person hill or slave one CLASS and NEG as animal one CLASS if COMP 1S would play as role INST PROX.S CLASSIf I were to roleplay in this language, it would be as a peasant or hill tribesperson or slave not as an animal.

An elevator had stairs so people could get off one poor ahead of the stop. Thrvstaires led to back around and doors. But I was on the top floor so the floorbinwas trying to reach difnrbecidyrby.thevdoor didn't open and the space in was on began t collapse.

This was a dream within a dream, and I remember talking to other person about it within the outer dream.

Clearly you wrote this while still sleeping.

Last edited by Vijay on Fri May 04, 2018 12:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

It's actually about Saint BSUTHNCS, the leader of a Christian revolt against an Egyptian pharaoh. The rebels rode on giant war cats, but they were defeated by the Royal Bee Battalion that drove the cats into panic with their stingers. It is the 2018th anniversary of the battle.

jal wrote:

linguoboy wrote:

hwhatting wrote:

linguoboy wrote:

L2 Learners of English: Please read this entire atrociously-written paragraph and point out all my errors.Also L2 Learners of English: I know you just told me that no native speakers say this, but I'm going to argue that not only is it not wrong to say this but also this is superior to what you said native speakers actually do say.

Someone's goat got got?

"Got gotten", got it?

It's an ongoing pet peeve. I know I did this occasionally when I was younger, but at some point I realised how moronic it was. It's one thing if you can find citations from another native speaker which seem to contradict what the one is trying to tell you; you might be dealing with a real regional or sociolectal divergence. But if it's just "I think this should work because I don't understand why it wouldn't", then you need to take a deep swig from the clue bottle before I crack it over your head.

It should be "on" your head. "Over my head" there's just thin air.

JAL

EDIT:

alice wrote:

jmcd wrote:

What alice is true

alice is true, yes.

EDIT:

mèþru wrote:

Soap wrote:

I looked at myself in the shower one day and realized what I am, and to this day I still persist.

Same with me regarding me real life name. Luckily for me, it happened to be the name I was born with. Although I wasn't in the shower at the time. Maybe if I was, then I would also think that I'm soap. But I do not hold such high ambitions as being soap. No, I am merely the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Soap (refering to soap in general, not Soap the user, of whom I knew nothing when I founded the faith. I morally object to worshiping humans, even if they call themselves Soap.)

KathTheDragon wrote:

I think Sal's position is why we're stereotyped as obnoxious stuck-up twats - cos people like Sal come along and say "Well why shouldn't I be an obnoxious stuck-up twat? What's the alternative???"

It has just occurred to me that further investigation of this phenomenon could yield a lot of useful insights, such as how when somebody says "Trump", one group of people actually hears "One step removed from God", another hears "President", and another hears "Misogynistic authoritarian nationalist buffoon".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum